Problems Created for African Politics by its Colonial Origins

We may have attributed some gains to colonialism in some areas. But this is not to deny that, in other vital areas, colonialism created problems for African politics, in its system and process, as well as the policies pursued by its practitioners in the continent. Gabriel Almond et al (2003) identified systems, process and policy as three critical areas to view politics and assess government. This section will deal with the first two. Let us now discuss the critical problem areas in African politics.

Lack of Institutionalisation

The absence of effective political institution is a major problem in African politics. This has, in turn contributed to the inability of most African states to establish and sustain political order. S.P. Huntington (1981) argues that, unlike developed countries, most third world nations, including Africa lacked “strong, adaptable, coherent political institutions”. Worse still, virtually all African states have borrowed foreign institutions developed for different setting.

He identified the following systems and process deficiencies: lack of well organized political parties; inefficient bureaucracies; low degree of popular participation in public affairs; ineffective structure of civilian control over the military, and absence of relatively effective procedure for regulating succession, and resolving political conflicts. The  implication of these systems and process deficiencies is failure to create political order in Africa.

Tribalism/Ethnicity

Tribalism is one of the dangerous legacies of colonial rule. Tribes had existed before colonial rule, but the arbitrary manner the partition of Africa was delineated complicated tribal relations. The world tribalism, according to the Oxford English Dictionary was coined in 1886; and was used to refer to a condition where “no national life, much less civilization, was possible”. In Africa, tribalism has a negative connotation, though there are ethnic groups in other parts of the world, who are equally, or highly antagonistic as those in Africa, but their differences like the one between the Serbs and the Croats are attributed to religion, not tribe. Consequently, the relations between the Maasai and Kikuyi in Kenya, the Hutu and the Tutsi in Rwanda and Burundi, the Zulu and Xhosa in South Africa are perceived in competitive, and sometimes, acrimonious terms. This was also promoted in the service of colonialism.


For example, the British invented and promoted the fiction that the Kikuyi and Maasai were strong enemies. In Rwanda and Burundi, colonial policies eroded the previous reciprocal balance in the relationship that had existed between the Hutus and Tutsi, which promoted the latter, also the minority group into a ruling caste. Having enjoyed benefits within the upper colonial hierarchy, the minority Tutsi would obviously perceive the idea of democracy, or majority rule a threat to their privilege. The 1994 genocide of the ethnic Tutsi, and moderate Hutus was to redress balance of power which Surento favoured the Tutsi. But before this time the Tutsi and Hutus were cordial, they intermarried and even looked alike, the only difference being that the Hutus were agriculturalist, while the Tutsi were pastoralists.

This confirmed Reader’s view that ethnic thinking had colonial origin. According to him, ethnicity or tribalism was not a cultural characteristic that was deeply rooted in African past; “it was a consciously crafted ideological tradition that was introduced during the colonial presence”.

Double Allegiance

The other negative implication of ethnicity in African politics is that it has made the task of nation-building difficult. Colonial policies promoted the view that every African, belonged to a tribe, just as every European belonged to a nation. Since a tribe was defined as distinct cultural units, with a common language and a single social system, the impression was created that every tribe could stand on its own; with any multi-ethnic arrangement viewed as a burden, and a violation of cultural purity. 

The disservice of this policy to nation building effort in Africa is that while 19th century Europe witnessed the unification of Germany and Italy, in the 20th  Century, colonial rule perfected the policy of divide and rule in Africa. Africans therefore found it difficult to accept the boundaries of the nation states as legitimate when those boundaries had their origins in alien rule.

Crisis of Modernization

Africa like most third world states are said not to be politically developed. The ingredients of political development include rationalization of authority and differentiation of structure. But social Darwinism places Africa at the bottom of the evolutionary ladder (Smith 2003:44.53). Because most African States are in a hurry to modernize, in order to escape from the trap created by their past; a gap inevitably developed between the limited capacity of institutions and the expanded levels of political mobilization. Huntington (1968:45) developed this proposition from de Toeque Ville’s thesis which says “among the laws that rule human societies, there is one which seems to be more precise than others. If men are to remain civilized or to become so, the art of associating together must grow and improve in the same ratio in which equality of conditions is increased”. This is not the case in Africa.

Weak Political Authority

Politics in Africa are not supported by values that strengthen representative government. To remain in power most governments in Africa substitute power for authority. The conception of state power and authority of government in developed countries differ.

 In America, for example, rather than creation of authority and accumulation of power, the system works best with limitation of authority, division and devolution of powers, checks and balances, and recognition and guarantee of rights. In the federalist, No 51, James Madison had the American experience in mind when he advised on how to frame a government which is to be administered by men: “the great difficulty lies in this”. You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself”. For most African States, the two goals have remained an elusive dream.

Weak Economic Base

Most African States are still struggling to provide for their citizens basic necessities of life. For this reason most people view competitive party-based politics as unnecessary waste of scarce resources, while elected political structures and their salaries and other perquisites as needless drain of resources those most African economies can hardly support. In terms of cost-benefit analysis, there is widespread belief that the poor performance of most governments in Africa does not justify the huge amount spent to erect and support democratic structures. 

It is instructive that in Nigeria, most citizens opposed the recommendations by the National Revenue Mobilization and Fiscal Commission that the salary of political office holders in the country be increased by over 100 percent.


SELF ASSESSMENT EXERCISE 1
Examine the origin of African politics

• What are the benefits of colonial legacy to African politics? 
• In what ways is tribalism related to double allegiance in African politics?